In furtherance of the government's clear intent to sell off everything that actually matters to the country, it appears that helicopter search and rescue operations currently operated by the coastguard, navy and RAF are now to be outsourced to private hands.

Is there nothing sacred to our politicians anymore? I am disgusted. I guess the Police will be next. Oh wait, front desk Police operations are already being privatised.

Public services should not be subject to private greed and the sole motivation of profit.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1):100% agree. Looks like the UK is intrenched in neo-Thatcherism...

The thing is, while I may disagree with many examples of privatisation that have taken place in our country, I can often see at least some logic in the reasons for the plan, understanding to at least some extent why people might think it's a good plan. This, however, I can see absolutely no point in whatsoever. This is clearly the sort of thing that should remain solidly in the hands of the country.

When you mismanage a budget you lose the privilege of having things be sacred. But this probably doesn't need to be sacred anyway.

In the US, many ambulance services (including air ambulances) are private entities, either for profit or non-profits. The aviation companies that do aerial firefighting for to stop forest fires are also private companies and nothing is wrong with that. In fact, I think Europe also has at least some privatized emergency services as well.

That's not really privatisation in the true sense of the word, more like outsourcing. It's still being tax funded as far as i can see. Privatising it wouldn't be a bad idea. Why should people who don't get lost at sea etc have to pay for people that do?

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):Public services should not be subject to private greed and the sole motivation of profit.

What i find truly depressing in this country is how much the electorate love a good old mindless cliche. If you had said that on Question Time i'm sure you would have got a huge cheer.

What difference is it actually going to make? It's just outsourcing. Just like many defence contracts are outsoured to BAe ...should we be foaming at the mouth about their private greed? (I realise the gov still has some influence here).

I welcome any move that reduces public expenditure frankly. I don't actually care if the standards decline. We are completely and utterly broke and it's about time the Tories started to cut spending and not slow down its increase.

I think we need to read into this more... I think this could be a good thing or a bad thing honestly. Privatization can lead to corruption and cutting corners, while government funded programs tend to get bloated and inefficient. Just reading the headline and jumping to conclusions is not a wise course of action

It's anything but mindless or a cliche. It's about looking at the way privatisation of huge chunks of infrastructure and services has led to the public being ripped off with monotonous regularity, and vast amounts of public money being spent trying to monitor and rectify the hideously frequent cock-ups. Recent case in point - the Olympic security fiasco, where the army had to step in and sort things out. Train companies who can't deliver what they promise to win tenders, infrastructure projects coming in absurdly over budget despite the initial promises, transport prices rising way above inflation year after year, water systems crumbling, suffering from underinvestment and poor management while the consumer pays more and more, and all the while those at the top of the business tree take their fat bonus regardless. Major airports sold into foreign hands that focus on shopping revenue above public service. The list goes on and on. These are not the sort of things I want to apply to life-saving operations. Not to mention the fiasco with Virgin and the west coast rail tender fiasco, where even the initial selection process cannot be trusted. No, I'd be far happier with our professional armed forces and national emergency services dealing with this sort of thing.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):In the US, many ambulance services (including air ambulances) are private entities, either for profit or non-profits.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):The aviation companies that do aerial firefighting for to stop forest fires are also private companies and nothing is wrong with that.

Apples and Oranges. Those companies are expected to adhere to the same civil aviation regulations as every other operator. In other words: ops normal only. Search and Rescue is a totally different case. Military/Government SAR Crews are expected to operate in conditions that are below the safe minimums established for civilian operators, and cannot refuse individual missions due to their own personal safety. Yes, if you didn't know already, "50/50" SAR missions do exist if deemed necessary. A SAR crew can expect, and are trained for, the scenario where it could be a "one way trip" for one or more of them.

Sure it is. The RAF needs to move personnel or equipment from point A to point B. They can either charter a private company to do it for them or buy expensive aircraft and do it themselves. Likewise, there needs to be a service to perform search and rescue at which point the government can make the same choices: pay a private company or do it themselves. I doubt anyone being pulled from the icy water will care.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 9):It's about looking at the way privatisation of huge chunks of infrastructure and services has led to the public being ripped off with monotonous regularity

Yeah, how awful not forcing people to pay for some hugely expensive pieces of infrastructure.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):Yeah, how awful not forcing people to pay for some hugely expensive pieces of infrastructure.

Erm, no. Obviously which ever system is selected, we pay.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11): They can either charter a private company to do it for them or buy expensive aircraft and do it themselves.

Nope. The RAF may use the services of private entities from time to time as they deem necessary. We are talking about the outsourcing of an entire public function. What you are talking about would be more like the RAF having to charter an extra helicopter or two to help with their search and rescue ops if perhaps they had a couple tech machines or a sudden extra demand for whatever reason. It is clearly not the same as privatising the entire thing.

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):Public services should not be subject to private greed and the sole motivation of profit.

No, of course not, they should be subject to public greed with the sole motivation of power.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 7): Privatising it wouldn't be a bad idea. Why should people who don't get lost at sea etc have to pay for people that do?

Actually, as far as I understand it (might be wrong, though), marine insurance is already supposed to reimburse governments / other providers for search and rescue operations. Of course that doesn't help in the case of the idiot who goes out on his jet-ski in bad weather, or the idiot who goes on a walk by the cliffs and forgets about tides.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):
No, of course not, they should be subject to public greed with the sole motivation of power.

With the small matter of elections, which allow those not doing well to be booted out. It's not perfect by a long shot, but it's better than the alternative. I am just sick of the country being sold off.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):How is that any different than the Royal National Lifeboat Institution doing most of the sea rescues?

The RNLI is a charitable organisation, not a private company. More than that, it's part of our national heritage, founded in the early part of the 1800s with the sole aim of saving lives. It's the polar opposite of corporate greed.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 10):Search and Rescue is a totally different case. Military/Government SAR Crews are expected to operate in conditions that are below the safe minimums established for civilian operators, and cannot refuse individual missions due to their own personal safety. Yes, if you didn't know already, "50/50" SAR missions do exist if deemed necessary. A SAR crew can expect, and are trained for, the scenario where it could be a "one way trip" for one or more of them.

There is no reason why civilians cannot be trained and insured to the same standards. Just put it in the contracts and make sure the expectations are clearly understood. For what it's worth, I don't think any volunteer firefighters take their jobs less seriously than full time firefighters so I don't see why civilian SAR pilots would be less serious than military.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 13):Actually, as far as I understand it (might be wrong, though), marine insurance is already supposed to reimburse governments / other providers for search and rescue operations. Of course that doesn't help in the case of the idiot who goes out on his jet-ski in bad weather, or the idiot who goes on a walk by the cliffs and forgets about tides.

That's the way it should and in which case it doesn't necessarily need to be in public hands at all. Ideally we'd have medical insurance over here and jetskiers or cliff-climbers could have rescue for that as an option in their coverage.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 9):It's about looking at the way privatisation of huge chunks of infrastructure and services has led to the public being ripped off with monotonous regularity, and vast amounts of public money being spent trying to monitor and rectify the hideously frequent cock-ups. Recent case in point - the Olympic security fiasco, where the army had to step in and sort things out. Train companies who can't deliver what they promise to win tenders, infrastructure projects coming in absurdly over budget despite the initial promises, transport prices rising way above inflation year after year, water systems crumbling, suffering from underinvestment and poor management while the consumer pays more and more, and all the while those at the top of the business tree take their fat bonus regardless. Major airports sold into foreign hands that focus on shopping revenue above public service. The list goes on and on. These are not the sort of things I want to apply to life-saving operations. Not to mention the fiasco with Virgin and the west coast rail tender fiasco, where even the initial selection process cannot be trusted. No, I'd be far happier with our professional armed forces and national emergency services dealing with this sort of thing.

Basically the gov needs to grow a pair, put in some stiff performance penalties, and enforce them if necessary.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 17):We vote governments out of power. Are you suggestion governments have absolutely no power over the running of public services?

Problem with voting is it's free and it's nowhere near granular enough to address the huge complexities of an economy. People make better decision when their money is on the line.

In fact voting is a horrendus way of addressing these issue. That's why many of us propose small (tiny) government - when Britain was most powerful public spending was only 10% of GDP (excluding serious war periods). Now it's around 40%. It's no wonder we are a totally uncompetitive country now.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):There is no reason why civilians cannot be trained and insured to the same standards.

Civil Aviation and Military Aviation are kept completely separate for a reason. The whole point of SMS is to:

A. Mitigate safety hazards to the point where they become non-hazards.
B. Training and Encouraging personnel to identify safety risks and to refuse to work in those situations that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level (the preservation of life and limb of everybody is paramount).

When a reportable incident occurs, the TSB will investigate it with the goal of identifying the causes and establishing a course of action to prevent it from happening again. In other words, intentionally risking life and limb is not an acceptable practice in civil aviation. Enacting regulations to enable individual operators to supersede general regulations for some situations and not others will take them out of the scope of civil aviation. It's been tried, and it doesn't work safely for anybody.

Almost all helicopters are already on contract from commercial companies.CHC Scotia in the main

Fixed wing aircraft are provided by RVL.

Inshore rescue boats are provided by a very long standing charity the RNLI

Today there is very limited use of military resources - RAF Valley helicopters remain on duty covering the Northern Irish Sea Snowdonia and the Lake District however a CHC Sikorsky S92 is expected to take over the civil rescue missions soon. RN helicopters at Culdrose can be called upon however they are not the first line of call.

Other resources have already been removed notably Nimrod and deep water missions now requires help from France, Ireland and Netherlands.

Out sourcing the few control rooms to Thales NATS or similar would be no great shakes.

Unlike the US the UK Coastal Rescue operation has been in the hands of Commercial and Not for Profit organisations for just about ever.

Anyone would think that this is news, the outsourcing of UK search and rescue has been on the cards since 2006. A preferred bidder was announced in 2010 but had their proposal rejected a year later due to some sort of naughtiness. Since then the existing civilian contractors have been on temporary contracts and the RAF and Navy soldiering on with elderly Sea Kings.

Search and rescue was originally a military function as they were the primary users, now however military use is minimal which reduces hugely any reason for the capability remaining in their hands.

Bearing in mind that part of UK SAR has been under civilian contractors for decades whats the problem ?

Quoting TheCol (Reply 22):A. Mitigate safety hazards to the point where they become non-hazards.
B. Training and Encouraging personnel to identify safety risks and to refuse to work in those situations that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level (the preservation of life and limb of everybody is paramount).

There is no reason why that cannot be changed for civil services to fly into dangerous situations when it's called for. It's ridiculous to think that bravery can only come when one collects checks from the government.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 22):When a reportable incident occurs, the TSB will investigate it with the goal of identifying the causes and establishing a course of action to prevent it from happening again. In other words, intentionally risking life and limb is not an acceptable practice in civil aviation.

Change it. Airline pilots won't magically become reckless cowboys because some civilian helicopter pilots are risking life and limb in SAR operations. The military investigates their incidents but still recognizes the dangerous nature of what they do and there's no reason civilians cannot do the same.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 24):Bearing in mind that part of UK SAR has been under civilian contractors for decades whats the problem ?

The government can get immediate savings from closing bases and cutting costs while paying out less to a private company with more incentive to be efficient. Since the contract is expected to go to established companies, there may be some economy of scale there too.

Not sure, since it depends on the benefits British military get. Pay is probably better, but the privateers may be less expensive overall.

In America contractors make sense. It's stupid to take some teenager and then pay for their care and feeding when stateside, their college tuition, help them buy a house, give them a pension, and pay for their healthcare way down the line so they can spend a few years serving food or doing construction in rear areas.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 30):Where does the economic gain come from anyway ? Are crew/mechanics paid less in the private sector ?

I think, depending on the inefficiency of the government, it can save a lot of money. Unfortunately, our government can be so inefficient they end up doing a bad job picking contractors and pay a fortune

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):When you mismanage a budget you lose the privilege of having things be sacred.

Actually you are looking at shedding responsibilities. Mismanaging the budget may well mean under taxing, or setting fees too low.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):The government as a whole mismanaged their budget.

That's what you get when you have competitive parties, lobbyists minimizing tax revenues from the wealthy, major programs that a civilized nation should be responsible for, etc.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):Even if the rescue operations are run with maximum efficiency, it's still a line item on the budget and therefore a legitimate place to look for savings.

And taxes for booze and cigs are also line items and therefore a legitimate place to look for revenue growth.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):I'd be curious to know if you express the same outrage when the RAF charters civilian planes to move their stuff rather than buying their own metal to do it.

Who would really care, Until it was learned that various companies charged major overrides to provide that service.

Personally I believe that it is just politicians looking for financial windfalls for their friends and therefore themselves. We always hear how private companies can do a job cheaper and better, but when it comes to delivering on that BS we find it is simply BS.

The best example is Medicare Advantage. This was supposed to be the best demonstration possible of the private sector being able to do the job cheaper. All they needed was a 15% override in the initial phase for set up costs.

Guess what? The government still pays them that 15% override on EVERY charge. That 15% override does not make it cheaper, it makes it 15% more expensive.

And then there are the games being paid. I saw a billboard the other day where you can take one Medicare Advantage Option that costs $0 per month. You can guess who will be paying their bills.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):Mismanaging the budget may well mean under taxing, or setting fees too low.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):That's what you get when you have competitive parties, lobbyists minimizing tax revenues from the wealthy, major programs that a civilized nation should be responsible for, etc.

Completely false and highly misleading.

Governments create budgets based on forecasted actual tax receipts, not some theoretical number based on how much people should be paying. I have explained this before to you, it's high time you stop misleading people on the topic.

It may seem to you that it's as simple as changing the wording in a contract, but it's not. The whole point of regulating civil aviation is to prevent accidents, up to and including the loss of life, from taking place. The TSB simply cannot show up on scene and determine that the loss of life was acceptable in a particular incident and not others. SMS at that point would be rendered moot.
Now that I think about it, even if it was possible, I can't even see how it would be cheaper to contract the exact same services out to a private operator. Operating costs would be the same or higher. You won't find very many civilian pilots and crew to do it for free when their day jobs don't pay well. The private sector would also need to convince military personnel to jump ship, since nobody else has the acceptable level of training and experience. That may be fine and dandy for the US, but not for every other country on the planet with limited military resources.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):Actually you are looking at shedding responsibilities.

It's not shedding responsibility, it's fulfilling responsibility differently. If you need to get something somewhere, you aren't shedding responsibility when you drop it in a FedEx box.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):And taxes for booze and cigs are also line items and therefore a legitimate place to look for revenue growth.

It would be if it weren't morally reprehensible to punish people for their personal, informed choices.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 36):The whole point of regulating civil aviation is to prevent accidents, up to and including the loss of life, from taking place.

For certain civilian operations, the regulations get changed to reflect their role in this case. We already have different rules for airlines with large planes, airlines with small planes, private operators, etc. One more set gets added.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 36):Now that I think about it, even if it was possible, I can't even see how it would be cheaper to contract the exact same services out to a private operator. Operating costs would be the same or higher. You won't find very many civilian pilots and crew to do it for free when their day jobs don't pay well. The private sector would also need to convince military personnel to jump ship, since nobody else has the acceptable level of training and experience. That may be fine and dandy for the US, but not for every other country on the planet with limited military resources.

As approx 1/3 of UK SAR has been contracted out to private operators for at least 25 years, it is reasonable to think that the comparitive costs, skill levels, and capability for both Military and Civilian SAR are already known.

Another factor is that the UK armed forces operated a large fleet of Sea Kings for many years, the far smaller SAR force could benefit from the economies of scale iof this large fleet.

The military decided that they wanted larger transport helicopters, soon the RAF will only operate the Chinook, and the Royal Navy the Merlin, both deemed to be too large for the UK SAR role. If the RAF and Navy SAR were to continue they would require a new helicopter type different to anything else they operate with all the associated on costs.

Military pay will likely be lower than civilian pay, however the civilians won't come with costs for accomodation, school fees etc attached. Additionally once trained they will remain available until the resign or retire. Military pilots spend more time flying desks in Whitehall than they ever do flying aircraft in order to spread precious flying hours round an oversupply of pilots.

I'm sure the chiefs of staff would rather spend their restricted funds on military capability rather than a SAR service whose role is almost exclusively civilian.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 37):For certain civilian operations, the regulations get changed to reflect their role in this case.

Like I said, the TSB cannot just show up and determine that the loss of life is acceptable in once case and not others. For SMS to work, it must be black and white. The crews also will need some sort of recourse, or regulation won't work.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 37):We already have different rules for airlines with large planes, airlines with small planes, private operators, etc. One more set gets added.

They all have to adhere to the same basic SMS principles.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 38):As approx 1/3 of UK SAR has been contracted out to private operators for at least 25 years, it is reasonable to think that the comparitive costs, skill levels, and capability for both Military and Civilian SAR are already known.

The SAR role for the private helicopter operators is diminished from the military crews, since they are still required to follow the same regulations as everyone else. In some situations, the RAF may need to assist.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1):Looks like the UK is intrenched in neo-Thatcherism...

I was a big fan of Thatcher and I still think she had more balls than any PM since. 70s Britain was a bit of a disaster: IMF loan, endless strikes, ridiculously powerful unions etc. I fully supported privatisation of various bloated state enterprises, but 30 years on, I have softened my position somewhat, and sometimes wonder if we've sold too much of the family silver.

For example PPP (Public Private Partnerships) seemed like a great idea for the govt to get all sorts of new toys for free, until someone worked out that paying £60 to change a lightbulb adds up, and after 20 years it would've worked out cheaper to have just run it themselves. A pal of mine is quite senior in Purchasing for the NHS and some of his stories about where the money goes are just unbelievable.

I am sure there are examples of where it works well though.

To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215

What will be happening is that the rather aging RAF and RN Sea Kings currently in the SAR role, will be replaced by a contractor flying an undisclosed but in terms of range/payload, less capable type.

There is of course a type more capable than the Sea Kings, that is already in RAF and RN service.
The Merlin.
The most logical step therefore would be buy enough additional Merlins, in a SAR config, to replace the Sea Kings.

But the Treasury won't wear it and given that, with budgets under huge pressure, the armed forces cannot do it.
Despite the fact the long and honourable history of RN/RAF SAR operations are well known to the public and have been a very positive symbol of the armed forces in their minds.
The same politicians who are pushing the end of RAF/RN SAR ops are often the ones who in the next breath seek to strengthen the ties between the forces and the public.

What will also happen is the that taxpayer will go from paying for SAR from the defence budget to subsidising a private company - one of those 'entrepreneurial' ones who seem to extract most of their revenue from the public purse.
The contract will be framed so that they will get their money no matter how much they screw up, since they will be keeping some seats of their boards warm for those politicians when they retire or have to resign. We've seen this again and again is so many areas.

Why stop there, if Cameron is so keen on this sort of thing, that lives depend on, why not swap his Special Branch Protection Teams - experienced and highly trained officers with the salaries to match, with say G4S - you know, them that did such a great job with the 2012 Olympic security.
(They got fined- not enough to punish them properly of course, still they burrow further into the public realm like a parasite).

Quoting TheCol (Reply 39):Like I said, the TSB cannot just show up and determine that the loss of life is acceptable in once case and not others.

Sure they can. "In the course of search and rescue operations it became necessary to operate in dangerous conditions acceptable only when life is at stake..." The military has plenty of standards and regulations while also conducting investigations and courts of inquiry when accidents do occur. There is no reason why civilians cannot do the same.

Quoting GDB (Reply 41):But the Treasury won't wear it and given that, with budgets under huge pressure, the armed forces cannot do it.

We all want things we can't afford, don't we.

Quoting GDB (Reply 41):one of those 'entrepreneurial' ones who seem to extract most of their revenue from the public purse.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 30):Where does the economic gain come from anyway ? Are crew/mechanics paid less in the private sector ?

The economic gain goes to the wealthy who get ownership of the operation, raise prices and cut overall compensation packages for the serf level workers. And of course there will be benefits flowing to the politicians who helped get their friends the choicest bits.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 35):Governments create budgets based on forecasted actual tax receipts, not some theoretical number based on how much people should be paying.

Well run, responsible, governments look at what needs to be done and then raise taxes to get the job done. Of course we had W & Dick who started a 10 year war on the credit card, but then I did direct my comment to "responsible" governments.

Because Budgeting is an ongoing activity it is normal (in government and business) to make projections of existing revenues. That can lead to increases in taxes, or tax cuts. A responsible government will still look at what needs to be done first. Being obsessed with taxes as the starting point of a budgeting process with no concern for the responsibilities of government is simply stupid.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 35):I have explained this before to you, it's high time you stop misleading people on the topic.

Just because people don't march in lock step with you does not mean they are misleading anyone. That comment of yours shows very poor judgement.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 37):If you need to get something somewhere, you aren't shedding responsibility when you drop it in a FedEx box.

Or go to a more efficient operation and mail it (for less money) at the Post Office. Actually, if you have stamps (or print your postage) you don't even have to drive to the Post Office - all you have do do is give it to the mailman as he comes to your house. The Post Office is a national treasure that the GOP is trying to kill so Bain & Co can organize the transfer to "private companies". There is a huge amount of money to be ripped out of that organization - no wonder the Big Boys are after it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 37):It would be if it weren't morally reprehensible to punish people for their personal, informed choices.

I've been pretty clear about taxing products that will result in public funds being spent in the future. You smoke then you need to pay that tax because public funds will be used in the future for treating you. Like a drink now and then - that's fine. But there needs to be tax revenues to help cover the costs of ER treatment of people injured by a drunk driver, as well as treating the drunk. Same with all the medical costs related to treating gun shot wounds. Taxes on the guns and the ammunition is only logical when you consider the number of people injured. Even that Holiest of Holy Living Conservative (Dick Cheney) shot a friend in the face.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 34):The amount of ignorance in this statement is astounding. And two other people jump right in after this in agreement.

And have you been living in the UK for long? I say what I said in reference to the UK's appalling track record of privatisation, which I am not ignorant of, having paid quite a lot of attention to, and having been born here and lived here all my life. It is fairly ignorant, on the other hand, to label the views of others as ignorant just because you disagree, and also without having taken account of all the relevant influences.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 34):but in other places firing a bureaucrat can be extremely difficult. Borderline impossible in some cases

It is actually not that hard to get rid of people in the UK compared to many other countries. Constantly we read on here of situations in other countries where bureaucrats and civil servants can't be sacked when they deserve it, but that's not largely my experience here in the UK - though it could still stand to improve.

Not when we will still be paying, probably relatively as much, for an inferior service with the company concerned likely being foreign owned.
The conditions around the UK coast are some of the most treacherous anywhere, with some of the world's busiest shipping lanes, there is also a higher incidence of flooding which call on the SAR choppers - most notably at Boscastle in 2004 when RAF and RN choppers prevented a major loss of life.

These are also some of the most experienced SAR crews anywhere, this expereince will be largely lost and the new operation, however enthusiastic will have less capable machines.

One of the most stupid - of many - business 'buzzwords' is 'doing more with less'.
There is a risk we will end up here paying as much, if not more, but getting less.
We have seen this in other areas too.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):There is nothing wrong with being a government contractor.

Maybe not, it does seen odd to here so much about 'government getting out of their way' when they are very reliant on the same government for their profits.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):The Post Office is a national treasure that the GOP is trying to kill so Bain & Co can organize the transfer to "private companies". There is a huge amount of money to be ripped out of that organization - no wonder the Big Boys are after it.

Where is this huge amount of money from an organization that habitually loses money?

It's important that mail and parcels can reach every address in the nation. But, most of those addresses are already served by others so duplicating the infrastructure with public money is unnecessary.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):I've been pretty clear about taxing products that will result in public funds being spent in the future.

Which is why you shouldn't let public funds be spent on such things. It's the connection between control and responsibility.

If I'm going to pawn off responsibility for my health on the government they are going to have to control the inputs that affect it. That means letting the government tell me what to eat and how much to exercise. To do otherwise constitutes a moral hazard. The bottom line is that if you want the government to cook the meal, you have to let them shop for the groceries. I'm not willing to do that and, as such, will take responsibility for my health.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):Taxes on the guns and the ammunition is only logical when you consider the number of people injured.

Taxes to exercise constitutional rights? From the same people who think that requiring ID to vote, often provided to people at no cost if they need it, is discriminatory?

Quoting TheCol (Reply 39):The SAR role for the private helicopter operators is diminished from the military crews, since they are still required to follow the same regulations as everyone else. In some situations, the RAF may need to assist.

The existing civilian contractors fly newer more capable aircraft than the RAF and RN, your scenario is totally incorrect.

Quoting GDB (Reply 41):What will be happening is that the rather aging RAF and RN Sea Kings currently in the SAR role, will be replaced by a contractor flying an undisclosed but in terms of range/payload, less capable type.

Bristows are offering the S92, newer, safer, faster and longer legged than the Sea Kings for the Northern bases, Bristow and Bond are believed to be offering the AW149 for the Southern bases where long range isn't required..

Both Bristow and Bond have many decades of experience in the North Sea.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):Well run, responsible, governments look at what needs to be done and then raise taxes to get the job done. Of course we had W & Dick who started a 10 year war on the credit card, but then I did direct my comment to "responsible" governments.

Because Budgeting is an ongoing activity it is normal (in government and business) to make projections of existing revenues. That can lead to increases in taxes, or tax cuts. A responsible government will still look at what needs to be done first. Being obsessed with taxes as the starting point of a budgeting process with no concern for the responsibilities of government is simply stupid.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):Just because people don't march in lock step with you does not mean they are misleading anyone. That comment of yours shows very poor judgement.

I inserted exactly ZERO politics into my reply to your post. I merely stated a simple fact, that balanced budgets do not depend in any way on the level of taxation. I have explained this before to you, but you continue to mislead others about it.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 44):Quoting PPVRA (Reply 34):
The amount of ignorance in this statement is astounding. And two other people jump right in after this in agreement.

And have you been living in the UK for long? I say what I said in reference to the UK's appalling track record of privatisation, which I am not ignorant of, having paid quite a lot of attention to, and having been born here and lived here all my life. It is fairly ignorant, on the other hand, to label the views of others as ignorant just because you disagree, and also without having taken account of all the relevant influences.

Your statement is ignorant not because I disagree with it, but because it is made in complete ignorance of how a market works.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 44):Quoting PPVRA (Reply 34):
I don't know how it works in the UK,

No, obviously not. But it's ok to call me ignorant?

When you make oversimplistic statements like the one I quoted, which completely ignores complexities of life, yes, absolutely!

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 44):Quoting PPVRA (Reply 34):
but in other places firing a bureaucrat can be extremely difficult. Borderline impossible in some cases

It is actually not that hard to get rid of people in the UK compared to many other countries. Constantly we read on here of situations in other countries where bureaucrats and civil servants can't be sacked when they deserve it, but that's not largely my experience here in the UK - though it could still stand to improve.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 48): which completely ignores complexities of life

It does no such thing. I made the comment advisedly. We have been perfectly capable of running emergency and other services on a national basis for a very, very long time indeed. It is perfectly possible, and in many ways better. There's still no need to be disrespectful just because you have a different point of view. Believe it or not, not absolutely everything has to be subject solely to market force. There are other factors that come into play in certain areas. Blindly believing that everything has to come down to market forces is in itself pretty simplistic. Some things I believe should not be run purely as a business, and that is both possible and in many ways desirable.

That's a pretty selective quote. But, in any case, it's my experience that we don't do so badly in that area, and the other benefits that I perceive come from nationalised services outweigh any relative shortcomings there.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 42):Sure they can. "In the course of search and rescue operations it became necessary to operate in dangerous conditions acceptable only when life is at stake..."

"and therefore no further investigative action is required". Seen that one before. No accountability, and no recourse. BTW, it only take one judge to end that practice. All you need is a couple of lawyers and a lawsuit. At that point it's likely the government will be losing a ton of money and will do a 360 anyway. Just too many holes in that Swiss cheese to make it work. Probably why it isn't being done now to the extent that your referring to.

Those aircraft must be operated at or above the same established minimums as every other outfit with the same type of AOC. The SAR pilots also have the right, and are trained, to refuse work under any conditions that are considered dangerous. The RAF, on the other hand, can order crews to operate in extremely hazardous conditions if deemed necessary to preserve civilian life.

Quoting GDB (Reply 45):Not when we will still be paying, probably relatively as much, for an inferior service with the company concerned likely being foreign owned.

What evidence is there that the service will be inferior, other than just the assumption that government is superior? And what difference does being foreign owned make?

Quoting GDB (Reply 45):These are also some of the most experienced SAR crews anywhere, this expereince will be largely lost and the new operation,

Unless, of course, they leave the military and join the contractors when their squadrons are deactivated and bases closed. In the 2000s you had soldiers serving a tour in Iraq, being discharged, and then going right back with a PMC.

No. You investigate the cause and how it may have been prevented, but the conclusion may be that they knowingly flew into a dangerous situation because that is what the mission required and it ended in an accident. There is a difference between raising the acceptable risk and simply whitewashing anything that might go wrong.